Looks like a good comparison. I think what made yours work out that way
is the fact that your dead load is about the same as your live load. In
my case I've got higher live loads. I will keep in mind, for future
reference, that when I've got lower live loads LRFD could help to trim
the design a bit.
I've read a couple of other posts saying that the weight savings should
not be the reason to use LRFD. I realize and can appreciate that fact.
Michael Ritter, PE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark E. Deardorff [SMTP:MarkD(--nospam--at)DandDEng.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 11:07 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test
> Just for fun I ran an analysis with RamSteel 6.1.
> This was for a typical two story composite floor, non-composite roof.
> Same framing plan at each level. 13' floor heights. 65# dead, 50# live
> at the floor, 15# dead and 20# live at the roof.
> ASD results:
> Roof - 59961#
> Floor - 73440# + 932 studs
> Columns - 21477#
> LRFD results:
> Roof - 57531# (4% reduction)
> Floor - 62696# (15% reduction) + 964 studs (3% increase)
> Columns - 21477 (no change)